Nayanthara, one of the most popular stars of South Indian cinema, in an open letter posted on her social media handles on November 16, 2024, publicly and explicitly accused Actor-Producer Dhanush of “festering vengeance” against her for getting into a relationship with her now husband, Actor-Director Vignesh Shivan, during the shooting of Naanum Rowdy Dhaan (2015) which was produced by Dhanush.
Nayanthara’s documentary Nayanthara: Beyond The Fairytale, which started streaming on Netflix on November 18, includes her personal life including the hardships she had to face as a female actor and outsider in the Indian film industry, along with other details of her personal life, her professional life, and visuals from her wedding ceremony. But it’s a mere three seconds of behind-the-scenes footage from the film Naanum Rowdy Dhaan that has sparked a firestorm—one that is now being fought in the courtroom.
Background: The Three-Second Controversy
One might wonder why a three-second clip is such a big deal. The issue arose when the actress, received a legal notice from Dhanush after the premiere of the trailer of her documentary on November 16, 2024, claiming Rs. 10 crore as damages for using the 3-second behind the scenes video from the shoot of the film that was allegedly shot on her personal device without permission. The alleged video is associated with the 2015 Film, directed by her partner Vignesh Shivan and produced by Dhanush under the banner of his production house Wunderbar Films, and it is during the making of this film, that love flourished between the two. Nayanthara claims in her letter that Dhanush did not provide her with the no-objection certificate (NOC) for using the visuals, songs, lyrics, and photographs of the said film which included candid moments between the two, for her documentary, even after battling for it for two years. She further, fiercely called out Dhanush for acting more out of vanity and personal resentment than any valid legalclaim.
To make matters worse, the Madras High Court on November 27 permitted Wunderbar Films, co-owned by Dhanush to sue Nayanthara, her partner Vignesh Shivan, and Netflix, by allowing a civil suit against them, which is seeking a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from the usage of any visuals or anything for that matter that may infringe the copyright in the Film. The defendants have claimed that the video was not empowered by Wunderbar Films and is personal. However the plaintiffs have denied it claiming it to have been shot by persons assigned by them, and the same was uploaded to their YouTube channel in 2015.
Copyright Law & Indian Cinema
Understanding the complexities of copyright law is essential to comprehending this disagreement. The cornerstone of intellectual property protection in the Indian film industry is the Copyright Act of 1957. The law is intended to protect rights, guaranteeing that individuals who create original works like literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works have authority over their creations. However, in India, producers are vested with ownership rights in cinematograph films. The other individuals involved in the making of the film, like the actors, directors, writers, and other artists generally sign an agreement and give up their rights.
In the backdrop of the tussle between Nayanthara and Dhanush, Section 14 of the Copyright Act, of 1957 empowers Dhanush with the right to the visuals, songs, photos, or anything of that matter of Film. The amendment of 2012, the Act provides exclusive rights as to the ownership of a film and all its related materials to its author who is typically the production house or the producer of the film as the works are created at the instance of the producers. But it is to determine whether the 3-second BTS video, shot on Nayanthara’s personal device infringes on these rights or not. It could be argued that any footage filmed on personal devices by individuals not part of the production team, was not at the instance of the producer and therefore the ownership does not automatically vest with the producer. The person who filmed the footage could claim ownership, particularly if they can demonstrate that it was created independently of the production
Another, exception to copyright infringement could be the de minimis doctrine which means that the ‘law does not concern itself with trifles’ comes into play. One could argue that this small infringement does not support the enormous financial claim, as the video is only three seconds long and the Film is about ten years old.
However, we are yet to see how the court may determine based on the agreements signed between the parties and look upon whether the copyrights include the rights to the footage taken on the personal devices of the actress.
Conclusion
The drama in the courtroom has caused a rift in public opinion. Dhanush’s actions are seen by some as a producer defending his rights to safeguard his intellectual property and defending his work. However, others saw it as a personal act of retaliation motivated by long-standing grievances unrelated to copyright law.
While the case is still to be decided, the actress has touched upon an important subject intentionally or otherwise. It is well-settled that artists primarily male or female leads, have little or no claim over their intellectual property, and isn’t it high time to bring systemic changes where artists can operate from the position of a stakeholder and not mere contracted labourers? It is indeed something that should be pondered upon.
There is no doubt that the actual cost of those three seconds is much more than any monetary amount. This legal dispute raises more general concerns about ownership and justice in the creative sector, regardless of whether it is a dispute between egos or a justifiable defense of intellectual property rights. In the end, the story remains captivating not just because of the celebrities involved but also because it addresses topics that are relevant to all artists in the film industry.
Authors: Sneha Makaria, Shreeya Sharma & Nandana Anil Nair